Being first to market is rarely the determining factor of success of a product, if someone can offer the exact same product cheaper or can out market the inventor it will matter little who was first. Remember how late iPods were to the market yet they dominated.

Some people will invent regardless if a system is in place but there will be fewer people bringing those inventions to market. I doubt you have ever been through the prototype and testing phase of a product, it can be very expensive as multiple iterations are needed to get the product ready to go to market, then you have tooling costs where you can go through multiple iterations too. These are iterations that your competitors won't have to go through and can offer the same product for a significantly lower cost. They can charge the same amount and spend the extra cash on marketing or keep it as profits, a luxury the inventor doesn't have.

A patent system is needed to protect inventors, they deserve a chance to make their money back. Unfortunately many companies take full advantage of these protections and use them as market barriers. The best example I know of is due to the greenhouse gass ban on CFC's inhalers, the new propellent used was HFAs and a patent wall was put around them, my son's inhaler went from $15 a month to $150 a month. I'm all for shorting the term to 3-5 years but inventors need to be protected.

The problem with your "for the greater good" thinking is simple there is a financial disincentive to develop an invention. It will take a year tops before your competitors can start selling your invention, you have about one to two years to recoup your costs. Many ideas will go uninvented because the inventor has no reward incentive to risk their capital in bringing their idea to market.

Patents do foster innovation, they allow the inventor time to recoup their investment before they have to compete in the market. Without patent protection the little guy would be fucked and has zero financial incentive to develop their idea.

You can easily integrate a lambda over 4 antenna into the wristband it would only have to be 4" long for the lower cell frequencies

Everyone carries around turds the human body and most animals have a good mechanism for the temporary storage of turds.

If it could be done cheaply it would, it's not just the motors that are introducing error it's the backlash in the feed screws/gearing/belt, backlash in the motor coupling, flex or misalignment of the linear rails, ... Eliminating backlash requires parts with very tight tolerances those parts are not cheap no matter how many are made, if they were cheap CNC machines would be cheap. If you want precision you need linear rails with tight fitting ball screws for control. A 3 axis setup like that is going to cost $1000 just for the table not the printer or controllers.

3d printing accuracy needs to be defined much the same way a cnc is. Expecting to get good parts on a cheap printer with an accuracy of 1/4" is setting yourself up for failure. It's not just that the cheap models are inaccurate but that their inaccuracy is not defined leading people to think their $250 printer has 1/64" precision. Simply defining the precision of the printers will make a huge difference, like you said 200 points per rotation is not an issue, it's the backlash in the gears moving the head, the rigidity of the rails the head travels on, or the slippage of the belt drive.

Water does not have a linear density ratio with respect to temperature so your number are suspect. At 4c, 370bar and 35 psu, the average temperature, pressure, and salinity of the ocean the density is 1029.502 kg/m^3 at 8c the density is 1028.957 about a 0.057% increase in volume which is what is needed for the 7 foot rise. I think in my original calcs I forgot to convert my delta F to delta K so I was off by a factor of two, that's still 25% of the sun's energy that hits earth. If you say that only 25% of that is due to expansion that's an increase of 1/8 of the suns energy that hits earth. That's still way too high to be plausible.

According to a US geological survey there are 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans and they have a surface area of 129,444,000 square miles a rise of 7 feet is 171,611 cubic miles of water or a 0.05% increase. The average temperature of the ocean is 39F to get that increase in volume the average temperature would need to be 46F. That's 4.06e25 Joules to achieve that over 86 years or 4.83e23 J per year which is half the total energy of the sun that strikes the earth each year. I just have a hard time believing that greenhouse gases trap 50% more of the sun's energy and put it directly into the ocean.

Not just a filtration system but frequent water changes as well. Fish waste and uneaten food become ammonia the ammonia is turned into nitrites by bacteria then the nitrites are turned into nitrates by another bacteria, these nitrates are not as toxic as ammonia or nitrites but a at 40ppm fish are defiantly stressed.

I would say that speaks more to your skill about taking care of fish then anything else. If I omit fry my fish live usually past the upper end of the age limit.

The sea world tank in San Diego is 7 million gallons and has 10 wales, that's approximately 100,000 ft^3 per whale. Further the filtration on the tank runs 30,000 gallons per minute it takes approximately 3 hours to filter 7 million gallons. Water cleanliness is not the issue, the whales and dolphins are stressed from from loud noises of children and not being able to travel, they are fed obscene amounts of antacids to try to minimize the stomach ulcers.

While I agree that it is highly improbable I am not so confident of this assertion to risk a $3 billion sub and 130 lives.

Fortunately there is this invention called a boat noun \bt\
: a small vehicle that is used for traveling on water
: a vehicle of any size that is used for traveling on water

What you said

People don't like this law because of the two hop rule (ass rape with 10" dick) without a judges order or any oversight. There doesn't need to be a perfect solution just stop ass raping, one hop with a judges order and require a privacy advocate that can represent the people and appeal rulings. It doesn't matter that the raping dick is 30% smaller the problem is the raping.

You seem to be missing my point, it's simply that you can not just look at gun laws and legal gun ownership and say tougher gun laws make people safer. As to why I used homicide rates instead of gun death rates which include suicide which invalidates many of you claims. Take your example of Israel they have tougher gun laws then Canada but nearly 2x the gun homicide rate but almost half the gun death rate. Also many countries do not track gun death rates so places like Russia with 2/3 of nonmilitary guns being illegal and having higher over twice the homicide rate as the US while having much stricter gun laws sure paints a compelling picture.